The idea of security for a long time has been a central principle as well as a debated issue amongst International Relations scholars. Security should be something we understand and belong to, it’s a shift from state safety to individual safety. The Securitisation Theory was the first theoretical response to discourse of human security. It has been observed that national security policy is a man-made design, it is not natural given, but politicians and decision makers created these policies. According to the Securitisation Theory, if there is an extreme security issue, it must be given full attention to and be dealt with immediately because of its urgency. These political issues that have to be managed immediately is often marked as ‘dangerous’, ‘threatening’, ‘alarming’ and so on by a ‘securitising actor’ who considers this a security issue and has the authority to move this issue ‘beyond politics’ because of the social and institutional authority they hold. Security issues therefore are not out in the public sphere yet but rather is expressed as issues that securitising actors wish to put “out there”. For example, a securitising actor can label immigration a ‘danger to national security’, this label shifts the threat of immigration from a low concern to a high priority issue meaning immediate action is required such as border security to be increased and monitored in more depth. (Williams, 2011) Traditional ways and methods to deal with security in IR has been criticised by the Securitisation theory, arguing that issues are not debilitating in themselves; but by labelling these issues as a ‘security’ issue, it has become a security issue. Right now, constructivist stream of IR represents a certain framework through which engaging with security studies. (Balzacq, 2010) The main argument is within the “securitisation paradigm” which the Copenhagen School of IR conceptualised, this argument states that security issues are socially constructed through discourse. (Weaver, 1995) This theory is an alternative view through which managing the process of a security threat isn’t really an “objective sense” in terms of language but the consequences of politica